Female stag beetle, most impressive at about 2" long. The stag beetle is of course named for the male of the species, which has big, showy â€œantlersâ€ that the female does not.
Manyâ€™s the time the young niece has implored me, as I dandle her on one knee and a margarita on the other (wonder no more why spinster aunts evolved with two knees), to tell the story of what life was like before Feministing. Her eyes grow wide in the flickering light of the short-circuiting lava lamp as I recount the bleak, sunless years eked out in greasy trenches where women had hair the size of Guam and bell bottoms were not ironic, when the icy fires of patriarchy raged unchecked and unblogged, and her unfortunate aunt was forced to pry her keister out of its lime green recliner and do her own patriarchy-blaming research.
Those days are gone, thank the lard, and the clouds have lifted. Now a full complement of reportage on the fucktarded exploits of the dominant culture, collected by a team of excellent young geniuses, is just a click away. Thanks, Feministing!
Today I allude to Jessicaâ€™s recent post about the eugenics brigade formerly known as CRACK (I cannot resist a guffaw of superiority over their moron website, which contains such Pythonesque howlers as â€œA substance exposed infant is born more frequently than once every 90 seconds"). This merry band of racist psychopaths marches into poor black neighborhoods, sniffs out the female crack addicts of child-bearing age, and signsâ€™em up to take 200 bucks in exchange for getting their tubes tied.
They say they are doing it â€œfor the children.â€ Man, you can get away with murder up in this mug if you say youâ€™re doing it for the children. Itâ€™s true that Project Prevention, as the group now calls itself, exhibits a sort of horror of crack babies, but the basis of that horror appears to be in the amount of public money required to keep them alive. No surprises there; the mitigation of child suffering and the preservation of public dough–both achieved through selective breeding, of course–are time-honored tenets of eugenics rhetoric.
The group appears disinterested in any result that does not fully preclude reproduction among their target class of women of color. That they disdain to facilitate drug treatment or access to health care, donâ€™t give a flip about preventing HIV, turn a blind eye to the possibilities of education, and couldnâ€™t care less about the underlying social conditions that generate crack addiction in the first place, reveals a distinctly hostile and punitive intent.
Fully supporting my theory that all racists are also misogynists, Project Prevention is disinclined to push its drug-money sterilization incentive to men, preferring, like the rest of humanity ever since the Old Testament became a runaway bestseller, to punish women exclusively for societyâ€™s unseemly tableaux. The group claim to accept male participants, but clients are referred to on the website only with feminine pronouns, and the only birth control methods they list as worth their $200 are strictly for the ladies: depo-provera shots, IUDs, and the surgical decommissioning of the fallopian tubes. No vasectomy, nohow.
Naturally the delusional fucktards of Project Prevention deny allegations of blatant racism. â€œIt is racist,â€ they counter, â€œor at least ignorant, for someone to learn about our program and assume that only black addicts will be calling us.â€ Adding defensively, as though theyâ€™re really stickinâ€™ it to ya with the scoop of the century, â€œNot all drug addicts are black.â€
Well duh, but the drug addicts Project Prevention is targeting sure are. â€œFuck,â€ quoth Jessica of Feministing, â€œthey used to put up billboards in poor black neighborhoods that said things like, â€˜Addicted To Drugs? Want $200?â€™… I wonder how many billboards went up in rich white areas where women are snorting coke at their kidâ€™s birthday party or popping Xanax like TicTacs.â€
Hey Jessica! Quit spyin’ on me!
In addition to flyering and billboarding poor neighborhoods, the group likes to hook up with parole departments and social services, clients of whom a disproportionate percentage are poverty-stricken people of color. These are, you know, government agencies with significant control over their disadvantaged clientsâ€™ lives. Says National Advocates For Pregnant Women: â€œLinking [Project Preventionâ€™s] cash-for-sterilization program to public officials who have the power to decide whether or not someone goes back to jail creates a level of government involvement in reproductive choice that is both immoral and illegal under the US Constitution.â€
Alas, the compulsion to promote state-sponsored sterilization of the undesirable poor is nothing new. The American eugenics movement of the early 20th century (which, incidentally, spawned the more infamous program in Nazi Germany) was founded in part on the pseudoscientific â€œprincipleâ€ that the impecunious are â€œgenetically unfit.â€ In fact, the founder of Project Prevention once promoted legislation
in California that would mandate sterilization of women who gave birth
to drug babies.
Should there linger in your keen mind any doubt about this groupâ€™s motives, an actual Project Prevention slogan–â€œDonâ€™t let a pregnancy ruin your drug habitâ€–should pretty much nip it in the bud.
Kind bud, that is!